• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

[Rumor] [MLiD] PSSR 2 Reportedly Doesn’t Have Frame Generation in the Plans: "developers hate it, hate it, hate it."

Will it be an option on console though?
I don't see any other way for it to even be on a console.
FG from 30 to 60 won't happen, the lag will be too severe and artifacts too obvious. Same is true for 40 base.
60 to 90-120 is the only option where FG makes sense on a console, and you can't ship your game expecting everyone to have 120 TVs with VRR to play it, let alone not provide a non-FG 60 FPS mode.

What's with the weird Technoskepticism lately?
 
At some point people need to start accepting the shriekingly obvious prospects of AI Neural Rendering, it is here, it is now, it is the future.

The good thing is this generation took the brunt of introducing 60 FPS performance modes across-the-board, half of the potential of this generation was wasted on games having to run at 60 FPS.

Next-gen will obviously have the same target ambitions with AI Frame-gen on top to take them to 120 FPS or even above, who knows? But the graphical leaps will be far bigger than this gen and that will be thanks to Neural Rendering, DLSS 5 (while it's still not taking the full 3D geometry/pipeline into account) is the beginning of what to expect FIDELITY wise for PS6 & Project Helix, just at much lower resolutions of course.
 
Because to me the over reliance on AI upscalers and frame gen is the gaming industries version of shrinkflation. Tools that make gaming worse in practice because developers lean on it to save on their own development cost.

They can make every game in native 4k performing 60fps - but those games need to looks like PS4 titles. There is no hidden secret here.

Same way we could have all PS3 games running 1080p/60fps (they would just have to look like PS2 games).
 
They can make every game in native 4k performing 60fps - but those games need to looks like PS4 titles. There is no hidden secret here.

Same way we could have all PS3 games running 1080p/60fps (they would just have to look like PS2 games).
Nothing wrong with that. Its preferable.

I would've been fine if this entire gen was PS4 graphics at native 4K /60fps with no tricks or artifact inducing techniques.

Is the chase of realism really worth all the trade offs now? For me they aren't.

RE9 on PC with no upscaling and no RTX running at 4k 120fps looks phenomenal. But we are being gaslit by Nvidia so they can sell more GPUs and they're successfully convincing people there's still more juice to squeeze.
 
Nothing wrong with that. Its preferable.

I would've been fine if this entire gen was PS4 graphics at native 4K /60fps with no tricks or artifact inducing techniques.

Is the chase of realism really worth all the trade offs now? For me they aren't.

RE9 on PC with no upscaling and no RTX running at 4k 120fps looks phenomenal. But we are being gaslit by Nvidia so they can sell more GPUs and they're successfully convincing people there's still more juice to squeeze.

RE9 looks like crap in raster compared to PT.

I don't want to be stuck with PS4 graphics, thank you. We have high end GPUs and Pro consoles - why not use them not just for framerate and resolution increases?
 
I think raster version still compares favorably to other current gen games. Path Tracing just shows how next gen games will look like with fully real time lighting (and RT is in between).
It could be so much better, but that requires more time and investment, really.
 
It could be so much better, but that requires more time and investment, really.

If they did more in raster version - it would run slower/use lower resolution.

Nothing is free in rendering, we have few raster only games that are extremely heavy to run - like Final Fantasy XVI.
 
I think raster version still compares favorably to other current gen games. Path Tracing just shows how next gen games will look like with fully real time lighting (and RT is in between).
It doesn't imo. The game was clearly not built and art-ed up with PT in mind. PT was probably used during development for debugging lighting issues and as reference for cutscenes. When assets and in-game lighting are built with PT in mind, from the ground up, that's when we will truly see PT shine. Currently it's a bolt on, and results are understandably unpredictable. There are scenes where the difference is massive and there are scenes where it actually looks like a step backwards.
 
If they did more in raster version - it would run slower/use lower resolution.

Nothing is free in rendering, we have few raster only games that are extremely heavy to run - like Final Fantasy XVI.
No way, man.

The game is literally developed in a corridor setting. You have massive open world games like Crimson Desert that look amazing and run very well.

There is no excuse for RE engine with all the walls and narrow hallways everywhere other than time and optimizations.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't imo. The game was clearly not built and art-ed up with PT in mind. PT was probably used during development for debugging lighting issues and as reference for cutscenes. When assets and in-game lighting are built with PT in mind, from the ground up, that's when we will truly see PT shine. Currently it's a bolt on, and results are understandably unpredictable. There are scenes where the difference is massive and there are scenes where it actually looks like a step backwards.

Lighting with PT behaves like lighting in real life so yeah, there could be scenes that look less "dramatic" vs. how they place lights in raster (cutscenes for example).

Here, we can see how much they always added to cutscenes so they look much better than gameplay:



And PT might or might not be a standard for next gen games on consoles, depending on how powerful PS6 really is in these types of calculations.
 
Lighting with PT behaves like lighting in real life so yeah, there could be scenes that look less "dramatic" vs. how they place lights in raster (cutscenes for example).

Here, we can see how much they always added to cutscenes so they look much better than gameplay:



And PT might or might not be a standard for next gen games on consoles, depending on how powerful PS6 really is in these types of calculations.

Not just dramatic, but even to convey artistic intent. Let's take a scene in a dark room. Since nobody really cares about hidden light placements in cutscenes, devs would fake it all up with hidden lights to stage the shot. All that will be removed with PT (as keeping fake lights will likely flood the scene with too much unnecessary light bouncing everywhere). But the side effect is they will end up with a darker scene that is badly lit instead. The correct approach for the future would be to design the whole stage and position the characters in places where the lighting would naturally make sense in PT (or use much more subtle fake lights to enhance the shot). Then place artificial hidden lights only for the baked version.

Over time this would result in devs not paying much attention to the baked version at all and older gen versions looking like trash compared to PT all the time. But that's the only way forward if they want to get the maximum out of PT.
 
Last edited:
Not just dramatic, but even to convey artistic intent. Let's take a scene in a dark room. Since nobody really cares about hidden light placements in cutscenes, devs would fake it all up with hidden lights to stage the shot. All that will be removed with PT (as keeping fake lights will likely flood the scene with too much unnecessary light bouncing everywhere). But the side effect is they will end up with a darker scene that is badly lit instead. The correct approach for the future would be to design the whole stage and position the characters in places where the lighting would naturally make sense in PT. Then place artificial hidden lights only for the baked version.

Over time this would result in devs not paying much attention to the baked version at all and older gen versions looking like trash compared to PT all the time. But that's the only way forward if they want to get the maximum out of PT.

True. We need games with only RTGI for lower end systems and PT for higher end systems - to finally have games build around fully real time lighting!

Raster lighting belongs in a museum.

indy1-1.jpg
 
Because every time I use frame gen on pc the games look and feel like shit IMO?

I have never had one scenario where I thought it made a game look better, run better, or not introduce a massive tradeoff.
I remember trying it on Oblivion remaster and it felt like dog shit to play so I turned it off fast. Tried it again not too long after and it didn't feel terrible, not sure what I changed in the settings between that time.
 
hopefully next gen consoles get a lowish latency version
just use it to take 60fps+ games to 120fps+

metroid4's 120hz mode felt good
assuming it didnt use FG though due to pretty big drop in visuals
 
FG from 30 to 60 won't happen.
Ooooohhhh... make no mistake, there will be devs that will try.

Unless Sony mandates certain things to ensure a certain standard of quality.
Because to me the over reliance on AI upscalers and frame gen is the gaming industries version of shrinkflation. Tools that make gaming worse in practice because developers lean on it to save on their own development cost.
The sooner you start looking at AI upscalers, the same way you look at pixel shaders... the better for you. The performance cost savings that upscalers give in relation to the out quality is so significant that its practically irresponsible not to use it. How can we justify spending 40-50% more performance just to run 4K natively when you can get close enough to 4K and even run at a higher framerate?

Its only unfortunate that naturally this means some devs would abuse it.

True. We need games with only RTGI for lower end systems and PT for higher end systems - to finally have games build around fully real time lighting!

Raster lighting belongs in a museum.

indy1-1.jpg
I personally believe that most PS6 games will be using ReSTIR GI... not even PT. ReSTIR GI can get you close to RT, while costing significantly less. Costs only about 30% the rays PT would otherwise cost.
 
I personally believe that most PS6 games will be using ReSTIR GI... not even PT. ReSTIR GI can get you close to RT, while costing significantly less. Costs only about 30% the rays PT would otherwise cost.
ReSTIR GI has already been expanded to support PT years ago and is now fully implemented by Nvidia as ReSTIR PT within UE 5. It runs at 1 spp, so the ray count is as low as ReSTIR GI. Unless CDPR plans to create their own version of ReSTIR PT, they are likely to use Nvidia's branch. Or... may be they will put together their own version for cross vendor support.

I don't think any game uses it yet (may be RE: requiem, but I'm not sure), but it seems to be production ready for a while and what Nvidia uses in all their PT demos.

That has since evolved further into techniques like Area ReSTIR, ReSTIR with MCMC mutations, ReSTIR with forward splatting, path guided ReSTIR (or RESTIR PG) etc., all to push the output quality much further while keeping the ray count low. They are a bit heavier than ReSTIR PT, but the quality goes up significantly that you may even be able to go below 1 spp to squeeze out more performance.

With AI denoising and a neural radiance cache, PT should be viable next gen, for quality or balanced mode at 1080p base resolution, if not performance mode. By mid to late next gen, I fully expect PT to become mainstream and may be even hit 60 fps.

What I'm hoping to see is quality mode becoming 48 fps instead of 30 (with 30 fallback only for TVs that don't support it), which would be a major forward-looking change in paradigm.
 
Last edited:
ReSTIR GI has already been expanded to support PT years ago and is now fully implemented by Nvidia as ReSTIR PT within UE 5. It runs at 1 spp, so the ray count is as low as ReSTIR GI. Unless CDPR plans to create their own version of ReSTIR PT, they are likely to use Nvidia's branch. Or... may be they will put together their own version for cross vendor support.

I don't think any game uses it yet (may be RE: requiem, but I'm not sure), but it seems to be production ready for a while and what Nvidia uses in all their PT demos.

That has since evolved further into techniques like Area ReSTIR, ReSTIR with MCMC mutations, ReSTIR with forward splatting, path guided ReSTIR (or RESTIR PG) etc., all to push the output quality much further while keeping the ray count low. They are a bit heavier than ReSTIR PT, but the quality goes up significantly that you may even be able to go below 1 spp to squeeze out more performance.

With AI denoising and a neural radiance cache, PT should be viable next gen, for quality or balanced mode at 1080p base resolution, if not performance mode. By mid to late next gen, I fully expect PT to become mainstream and may be even hit 60 fps.

What I'm hoping to see is quality mode becoming 48 fps instead of 30 (with 30 fallback only for TVs that don't support it), which would be a major forward-looking change in paradigm.

I don't get this hate for 30fps. It's not only far more freeing than 40fps (saves 8ms frame time) but it is also more pleasing for action-adventure games and story based RPGs as it is closer to the 24fps standard set by cinema. Many game trailers deliberately present at 30fps for this reason.

30fps will continue to be a option developers choose even with PS7 or PS8.
 
Framegen should be an optional toggle and not a forced feature on players. It adds latency and only really looks good if the base FPS is consistently at least around 60fps, but ideally you want the FPS a bit higher to reduce artifacts.
 
ReSTIR GI has already been expanded to support PT years ago and is now fully implemented by Nvidia as ReSTIR PT within UE 5. It runs at 1 spp, so the ray count is as low as ReSTIR GI. Unless CDPR plans to create their own version of ReSTIR PT, they are likely to use Nvidia's branch. Or... may be they will put together their own version for cross vendor support.

I don't think any game uses it yet (may be RE: requiem, but I'm not sure), but it seems to be production ready for a while and what Nvidia uses in all their PT demos.

That has since evolved further into techniques like Area ReSTIR, ReSTIR with MCMC mutations, ReSTIR with forward splatting, path guided ReSTIR (or RESTIR PG) etc., all to push the output quality much further while keeping the ray count low. They are a bit heavier than ReSTIR PT, but the quality goes up significantly that you may even be able to go below 1 spp to squeeze out more performance.

With AI denoising and a neural radiance cache, PT should be viable next gen, for quality or balanced mode at 1080p base resolution, if not performance mode. By mid to late next gen, I fully expect PT to become mainstream and may be even hit 60 fps.

What I'm hoping to see is quality mode becoming 48 fps instead of 30 (with 30 fallback only for TVs that don't support it), which would be a major forward-looking change in paradigm.
I believe RE:R is using RsSTIR.

Anyways, my bad... I meant to say ReSTIR PT... not actual native PT for all GI/lighting next gen.
I don't get this hate for 30fps. It's not only far more freeing than 40fps (saves 8ms frame time) but it is also more pleasing for action-adventure games and story based RPGs as it is closer to the 24fps standard set by cinema. Many game trailers deliberately present at 30fps for this reason.

30fps will continue to be a option developers choose even with PS7 or PS8.
For real, 30fps needs to die. And yes, devs will continue using it as long as they are allowed to. And if platform holders don't do anything about that, a lot of devs would never bother with the optimizations necessary to ensure their games look at their best when running at 60fps.
 
I don't get this hate for 30fps. It's not only far more freeing than 40fps (saves 8ms frame time) but it is also more pleasing for action-adventure games and story based RPGs as it is closer to the 24fps standard set by cinema. Many game trailers deliberately present at 30fps for this reason.

30fps will continue to be a option developers choose even with PS7 or PS8.
Well, firstly I don't hate 30 fps. Plenty of games that are perfectly ok with it. Also, it's absolutely feasible to create the "cinematic" look while still running at 60 fps with lens and motion blur techniques. Hellblade 2 doesn't suddenly lose its cinematic flair at 60. The issue is, when are we ever going to step beyond "perfectly ok"? 30 fps is simply an outdated format that is aging towards obsolescence and objectively sub-optimal for any interactive game. Yes, it will stick around for movies for a very long time as there is simply too much legacy (both technological and perceptual) tied to it. But there's a reason it would straight up make you vomit in VR. I think 40 locked or 48 with VRR is a good step up for the next gen or two before this becomes an irrelevant topic.

And many game trailers are presented that way because they are just that. Non-interactive game trailers that you watch. There are additional reasons like file size, bandwidth and compression quality that also affects that decision. Not just aesthetics.

Given the option, the only devs who would actively choose only 30 for their games, are ones trying to replicate cinema in every aspect, warts and all. And those tend to be the rubbish games anyway (like The Order 1886). The issue has always been that heavy compromises needed to be made because the CPU holds everything back. GTA 6 would fall in that category if there is no performance mode. This will change next gen. With the use of GPU work graphs, half the stuff that is even using the CPU (like city simulations, procedural generation, collision detection, NPC AI etc.) will eventually move to the GPU. The CPU will simply be handling pure game logic and some physics. And if limited to only that, it can do it well above 30 fps.

I believe RE:R is using RsSTIR.

Anyways, my bad... I meant to say ReSTIR PT... not actual native PT for all GI/lighting next gen.

Then we are on the same page. I think native PT will eventually become obsolete even for offline rendering. It's too brute force and eventually AI will bring it so close to ground truth that it may be used only for model training
 
Last edited:
I don't get this hate for 30fps. It's not only far more freeing than 40fps (saves 8ms frame time) but it is also more pleasing for action-adventure games and story based RPGs as it is closer to the 24fps standard set by cinema. Many game trailers deliberately present at 30fps for this reason.

30fps will continue to be a option developers choose even with PS7 or PS8.
It's strange how console users almost demand 60 now, like you guys have been ok with 30 since the start of gaming, just goes to show cultural shifts, people wouldn't care if others around or like them dont care either.

I do wish these consoles were released after internal upscaling was possible, making it 60 without upscaling completely destroys the next gen graohical potential and this 'PS4 games but 60' is the result.

Also why PS6 should release next year with PSSR making games higher fps/ higher resolution via AI upscaling, I do think devs shouldn't have conditioned console users until PSSR had been normalized and on base consoles first.
 
What do you mean looks crap in raster compared to PT? it's still rasterised geometry, the PT is just lighting, it's not fully path traced real time graphics, no game is yet and probably won't ever be, we will go to simple low poly geometry with a DLSS5 like AI generated scene instead.
 
What do you mean looks crap in raster compared to PT? it's still rasterised geometry, the PT is just lighting, it's not fully path traced real time graphics, no game is yet and probably won't ever be, we will go to simple low poly geometry with a DLSS5 like AI generated scene instead.

Of course it's "just" lighting. But lighting is enough to change entire looks of the game.



gogsNLj8s19YaanQ.jpg
ZYLj9SvOTyUHtK59.jpg
e9f8BoSglUBlUQd8.jpg


CP2077 is more extreme example than RE because it has dynamic TOD and isn't linear. But every game benefits from Path Tracing = realistic lighting (unless developers just don't want realistic lighting for some reason).
 
What do you mean looks crap in raster compared to PT? it's still rasterised geometry, the PT is just lighting, it's not fully path traced real time graphics, no game is yet and probably won't ever be, we will go to simple low poly geometry with a DLSS5 like AI generated scene instead.
My bad. I was meaning to say baked lighting that is typical of traditional rasterization. Not rasterization itself. That's not going away anytime soon, if ever. The moment art assets and lighting setup is designed around PT, the issues with baked lighting would show even more, because the more the focus turns to PT, the less time devs would spend towards high quality and consistent bakes, where the fake lights are placed appropriately or where characters are lit. You are already seeing it between RT and baked versions of games, where basic shit that looked just fine (like SSR, SSAO, planar reflections, high quality cube maps etc) in previous gens are completely missing now without enabling RT. It will get worse when PT gets widespread adoption.

As a result, cross gen games will have a wider visual gap than it did between PS4 and PS5, where RT was barely even used.
 
Last edited:
Just because developers dislike it doesn't mean Sony won't include it in the PS6 hardware.

Given how Nvidia is trying to oversell Path Tracing in the coming months (Control 2, 007 FL), and the need of frame generation at native 30/40fps on these GPUs, it means the PS6 or the next Xbox will use this kind of technology, partly because AMD is continuing down this path.
 
Just because developers dislike it doesn't mean Sony won't include it in the PS6 hardware.

Given how Nvidia is trying to oversell Path Tracing in the coming months (Control 2, 007 FL), and the need of frame generation at native 30/40fps on these GPUs, it means the PS6 or the next Xbox will use this kind of technology, partly because AMD is continuing down this path.

They can like it or dislike it however they want. This shit will be optional to implement anyway (most likely), and many devs will be using it to get 120Hz output in their games...
 
They can like it or dislike it however they want. This shit will be optional to implement anyway (most likely), and many devs will be using it to get 120Hz output in their games...

More likely we see 30Hz with frame generation to 60Hz. Crimson Desert devs were advertising Xbox ROG Ally White compatibility with Frame Generation turned on to reach 40fps.
 
More likely we see 30Hz with frame generation to 60Hz. Crimson Desert devs were advertising Xbox ROG Ally White compatibility with Frame Generation turned on to reach 40fps.

But on PS6 with good CPU and 9070XT class GPU they won't have to do that... And in cross gen period they will have plenty of power over last gen versions.
 
But on PS6 with good CPU and 9070XT class GPU they won't have to do that... And in cross gen period they will have plenty of power over last gen versions.

The CPU will help with preventing frame time spikes for sure. GPU wise I don't see the PS6 delivering path tracing at 60Hz.
 
Top Bottom